Coordination Strategies for Edge Organizations

Joaquín Herranz, Jr.1 Kevin C. Desouza2,3 Sumit Roy3

Evans School of Public Affairs1

The Information School2β Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering3

University of Washington

Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium2008

Overview

• Part 1: Organizational Theory Critique of the EO

• Part 2: Critical Review of Conceptualizations of Terrorist Entities

• Part 3: Coordination Strategies for EOs

• Closing

Part 1: Organizational Theory Critique of the EO

• Alberts and Hayes (2003): unlike hierarchies, EOs have distributed information, collective sensemaking, distributed power, dynamic task allocation, and shared understanding of command intent.

• Scott (2006): – EO discussion over-emphasizes their positive characteristics

and under-emphasizes critical vulnerabilities.– EO concept is limited because it: 1) lacks attention to

human/social issues; 2) inadequately considers nonmilitary organizations; 3) insufficiently attends to the wider environment in which military organizations operate; and 4) lack consideration of the problems associated with organizational change.

Table 1. Organization Theories: Critiques of the EO Concept

T h e o r y

s y n o p s is p r in c ip le s c r i t iq u e o f E O

s c ie n t i f ic m a n a g e m e n t

( T a y lo r 1 9 4 7 )

p la n n in g o f w o r k to a c h ie v e e f f ic ie n c y , s ta n d a r d iz a t io n , s p e c ia l iz a t io n a n d s im p l i f ic a t io n .

s c ie n c e , n o t r u le - o f - th u m b ; w o rk e r s e le c te d s c ie n t i f ic a l ly ; s c ie n t i f ic t r a in in g o f w o rk e rs ; m a n a g e m e n t / la b o u r c o o p e ra t io n n o t c o n f l ic t

n o t s ta n d a r d iz e d

b u r e a u c r a t ic a p p r o a c h

( W e b e r 1 9 4 7 )

c o n s id e r o r g a n iz a t io n a s a s e g m e n t o f b r o a d e r s o c ie ty

s t r u c tu r e ; s p e c ia l iz a t io n ; p r e d ic ta b i l i t y a n d s ta b i l i t y ; r a t io n a l i t y ; d e m o c r a c y .

n o t s p e c ia l iz e d

t r a n s a c t io n c o s t s

( W i l l ia m s o n 1 9 8 1 )

c o s t in c u r re d in m a k in g a n e c o n o m ic e x c h a n g e .

s e a r c h a n d in fo r m a t io n c o s ts ; b a r g a in in g c o s ts ; p o l ic in g a n d e n fo r c e m e n t c o s ts

u n s p e c if ie d c o s ts

p r in c ip a l - a g e n t

( J e n s o n a n d M e c k l in g 1 9 7 6 )

p r in c ip a l ’ s  o b s e r v a t io n  o f  a g e n t ’ s  p e r f o rm a n c e   i s  c o s t ly  o r  n o t   f u l ly  p o s s ib le  

c o n d i t io n s o f in c o m p le te a n d a s y m m e tr ic in fo r m a t io n

g o a l in c o n g ru it y & m o r a l h a z a r d

r e s o u r c e d e p e n d e n c y

( P fe f fe r a n d S a la n c ik 1 9 7 8 )

o r g a n iz a t io n s r e s p o n d to e x te r n a l a c to r s u p o n w h o s e re s o u r c e s th e y d e p e n d

c o s ts o f g iv in g in to e x te r n a l d e m a n d s ; c o s ts o f a b a n d o n in g u s e o f th e r e s o u r c e ;

d e p e n d e n c y c o n f l ic t s

c o n t in g e n c y

( W o o d w a r d 1 9 5 8 )

m a n a g e m e n t s ty le a n d o r g a n iz a t io n a l s t r u c tu r e a r e in f lu e n c e d b y e n v ir o n m e n t

te c h n o lo g ie s d e te r m in e d if fe r e n c e s in s p a n o f c o n t ro l , c e n t r a l iz a t io n o f a u th o r i ty , a n d fo r m a l iz a t io n o f r u le s a n d p r o c e d u re s .

n o n c o n t ro l

in s t i t u t io n a l is m o r g a n iz a t io n e a r n s le g i t im a c y v ia s t r u c tu r a l

c o n fo r m to r u le s a n d b e l ie f s y s te m s p r e v a i l in g in th e

Coordination Theory

• Malone and Crowston (2001):

– identify varied dependencies and processes to manage them;

– emphasize technological imperative in the effects of informationtechnology (IT) on organizations and markets.

– apply "coordination perspective" in three different domains: a) understanding the effects of IT on human organizations and markets; b) designing of cooperative work tools, and designing distributed; and c) parallel processing computer systems.

– argue IT reduces coordination costs through the compounding processes of 1) substituting human coordination with IT-based coordination, 2) increasing overall amount of coordination, and 3) shifting toward more coordination- intensive structures.

Critique of Coordination Theory

and yet, coordination theory (CT) under-emphasizes specific processes involved in managerial coordination:

– CT does not fully address the central conceptual problem of organizing on the edge

– CT implies that all instances of coordination include actors performing activities that are interdependent;

– CT suggests there is no single "right" way to identify these components of coordination in a given situation, raising problems of performance measurement, outcomes, and accountability.

Part 2: Critically Reviewing the Continuum of Conceptualizations of Terrorist Entities

• overemphasizes individual terrorists and their social networks and underemphasizes organizational networks (Jackson et. al. 2007; Cragin et. al. 2007; Libicki et. al. 2007; Sageman 2004; Cordes et. al. 1985)

• generalizes networks, and underemphasizes structural differencesin network forms and functions (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 1996, 2001; Hoffman 1998, 2006a)

• emphasizes terrorist networks as more centrally controlled (Rabasaet. al. 2007)

Overall Limitations of Extant Theory

many views of the terrorist network and counter-terrorist EO suffer from a too stylized perspectives that underemphasize conditions and issues of

– hierarchy, – contingency, – social relations, and– hybridity

Part 3: Coordination Strategies for EOs

• Wilkins’ and Ouchi (1983):– three basic mechanisms of organizational control:

• markets (i.e., “contingent orientation”),• bureaucracies (i.e., “hierarchical orientation”), and• clans (i.e., “community orientation”).

• each mechanism is associated with different value sets that underlay and motivate different types of coordination

Table 2: Strategic Orientation Value-Sets

Values Dimension

Bureaucratic  Entrepreneurial  Community 

Ideology 

legislated order (e.g., state-focus)

market‐focus, individualism,  

quid pro quo 

kin‐ and clan‐focus

Goals, preferences stability, accountability, equitable treatment 

value‐maximization  values‐driven, social tradition  

Power and control very centralized with more reliance on rules 

opportunistic individualism (often oligopolistic)  

less centralized with self‐interest groups & cliques 

Implicit structure hierarchical, departmental   

quasi‐autonomous units   loosely‐coupled units 

Decision process 

procedural, rationality,  

top‐down 

technical, opportunistic, middle‐out  

situational, participatory, 

bottom‐up 

Decisions follow from established code routines 

follow from maximizing monetary value 

result from social dictum and negotiation  

Information  requirements 

reduced by use of rules and procedures 

extensive and systematic  ad hoc 

Partially derived from Pfeffer (1981)

Table 3: EO Coordination Tactics for C2 Functions

C2 Function

Bureaucratic  Entrepreneurial  Community 

recruiting  draft sign‐up bonus  family referrals  

training structured step‐by‐step program 

incentivized performance  

apprentice‐ship, mentoring  

intelligence mining large databases  

fee‐baed rewards   insider double‐agent 

special operations specialized branch teams (e.g., SEALS)   

mercenary teams  cells  

contracting low‐bid contracting      cost‐plus contracting  family‐tie 

contracting  

Strategic Orientations in Multisectoral Networks

• three value sets represented in three organizational sectors (public, nonprofit, for-profit)

• networks are comprised of three sectors

• multiple organizing logics seen in multisectoral networks (Herranz 2007)

• coordinating multisectoral networks involves identifying and motivating different levers of motivating logics

Strategic Propositions for Coordinating EOs

• Proposition 1: An EO with a community orientation is likely to be active in dynamic situations based on mix of available strong and weak social ties.

• Proposition 2: An EO with a bureaucratic orientation is likely to be reactive in dynamic situations when it already has set procedures for the conditions it encounters.

• Proposition 3: An EO with an entrepreneurial orientation is likely to be adaptive in dynamic situations when sufficient (human, capital) resources are available.

Closing

• EO effectiveness and efficiency is related to its network coordinating strategy.

• EO agility is related to appropriate coordinating strategy given the conditions of its internal and external environments.

• EO leadership requires determining strategic trade-offs as well as operational choices in multi-organizational multisectoral complex endeavors.